|
Greetings from a long-time lurker.
A few months ago I tried posting a link to a video I thought this community would enjoy. It's a short interview with Steve Wozniak recorded 40 years ago when the Apple II was near its peak of popularity. I wrote a brief description and history, and included a link to the clip in my personal Vimeo account.
My message was immediately "flagged as potential spam." Although it was "awaiting moderation" it never surfaced. I tried twice.
IAC, I'd like to try again to send the link. I was told that Woz himself saw the clip a couple of days ago and that it cheered him up following his stroke in Mexico last week.
Can anyone tell me if I somehow violated some CP code of conduct? Should I give it another shot?
Thanks-
-David
|
|
|
|
|
Please try it again, David, on this thread here. If I spot when you do it, I'll let it through. If something bad happens, please email me (sean@codeproject.com) and I'll post it on the thread
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I think I remember seeing the post in moderation. Unsure what I did with it. Often I leave things like that for others to judge.
|
|
|
|
|
As your "official" contributions are low, your link probably got caught by the spam filters, and depending on the content of the message the human moderator didn't approve it.
If you post it again, do not post "just" the link. Write some text describing the content and a sentence referring to this thread. Then the one that find your new message in the moderation queue will most probable let it through
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
As I recall there was a brief statement to that effect, so I could tell that it was at least on-topic.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: so I could tell that it was at least on-topic
and yet didn't let it through 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Correct, I'm pretty sure I left it for others to decide. If it was never approved, then others may have banished it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, Folks. Sean asked me to reply on this thread so here's the link and a little more info about the clip:
Back in 1983, when the IBM PC was relatively new and the Mac had not yet been introduced, I was involved with a users group in New York called NYPC. In conjunction with the local Apple group, we produced an all-day event with microcomputer-related seminars, exhibits, and vendors. We also had guest speakers including Steve Wozniak of Apple and Bob Frankston of VisiCalc fame.
I produced a video "covering" the event which was shown on public access cable TV. It was seen by probably no more than 4 people. The show included interviews with Wozniak and Frankston.
Here's a 5-minute clip of the Wozniak interview. It's preceded by a brief chat between Woz and Frankston on the merits of the BASIC programming language. I hope you enjoy this little trip down memory lane:
https://vimeo.com/788473906/f9281f58a4?share=copy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty cool. It starts extremely well, but IMMHO they lose some... pinch... when the song goes happy-happy
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFAICT, all cores/threads (12/24) on my system get used when doing parallel tasks. And things seem to scale as expected going from 8 to 12, so my experience seems refute those claims. Additionally, I would have thought that those that are using AMD ThreadRippers with 32/64 cores would have noticed that they're not getting the expected boost from the huge core count.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
I have an AMD® Ryzen 5 2600x six-core processor × 2 (12) core in mine and I notice that all my cores get used also. Running Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS all seems good.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but see Daniel Pfeffer's reply down-thread. The actual issue has to do with time-slice calculations for the scheduler, not the use of CPU cores/threads. If performance could be better with finer grained calculations for more than 8 cores, it's probably pretty subtle. Like all things, there's probably a point of diminishing returns, and maybe somewhere around 8 cores, scheduling characteristics don't make much difference overall. No doubt someone like the guys over at Phoronix will do some benchmarking with patched kernels and report. Then we'll know what, if anything, we've been missing.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
I read the original article.
The issue is not that only 8 cores are used, but that the time slice does not scale properly with the number of cores. The larger the number of cores, the larger the inherent multitasking, so less switching is performed on each core to simulate multitasking.
The Linux kernel is supposed to use a certain core number-dependent algorithm to calculate the time slice size, but the number of cores used in the calculation is maxed out at 8.
IMO, this is deliberate. When you have more than 8 cores, increasing the time slice size gives no real benefit.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would anyone need more than 8 codes? 
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
Eight cores oughta be enough for anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
Anything more is just pretentious!
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! But how many threads? I seem to recall a CPU (maybe MIPS?) that supported 3 threads per core, and there's tales of IBM Power supporting 4 or 8 TPC, and I think Sun SPARC had chips that supported 8 TPC. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those! Oops, sorry, wrong forum
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
(PIEBALD looks up Itanium specs...)
|
|
|
|
|
I think how many threads per core are supported is determined by the O/S, not the CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking in terms of "Hyperthreading", or "Virtual Cores", which is definitely hardware, not software.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Eight cores oughta be enough for anybody.
Consider
(a) the number of cores in an AMD Threadripper CPU
(b) the fact that you can use AMD CPUs as space heaters
You might want to make use of more cores during those cold winter nights...
|
|
|
|
|
Uh huh, here in freaking Phoenix.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
